View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PE 2019
Investigation of Profile-Based Curl and Warp Analysis Using LTPP Profile Data
By
Steven M. Karamihas
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
With Kevin Senn and Timin Punnackal, NCE
And Larry Wiser, FHWA
PE 2019
AZ Section 040213, Upward Curl
Source: FHWA
PE 2019
•Estimate the level of curl and warp of JPCC using profile.
•Relate curl and warp to roughness.
•Refine an existing method.
•Apply the method to a broader set of sections.
“What would the roughness be without curl and warp?”
Advancement of Curl and Warp…..
PE 2019
•Locate the joints.
• Isolate slab profiles.
•Fit slab profiles to an assumed function (Westergaard).
•Cast the result in terms of strain gradient.
•Aggregate over a test section.
Core Method (Chang, Rasmussen, et al.)
PE 2019
Joint Finding
© FHWA
PE 2019
Isolated Slab Profile
Source: FHWA-HRT-12-068
-100 -50 0 50 100
Longitudinal Distance (in)
-.1
0
.1
.15
Detrended Profile (in)
.05
-.05
PE 2019
-100 -50 0 50 100
Longitudinal Distance (in)
-.1
0
.1
.15
Slab Profile (in)
.05
-.05model
measurement
Fitted Slab Profile
Source: FHWA-HRT-12-068
PE 2019
Westergaard Model
PE 2019
Idealized Slab Shapes
Source: Rasmussen
-100 -50 0 50 100
Dist. from Slab Center (in)
-.2
0
.2
.4
Vertical Slab Deformation (in)
-100 -50 0 50 100
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Dist. from Slab Center (in)
Vertical Slab Deformation (in)
RRS (l) = 10 inchesPSG = -40 με/inch
RRS (l) = 80 inchesPSG = -40 με/inch
PE 2019
Structural Evaluation, Spatial Trends
© FHWA
Downward Curl
Upward Curl
PE 2019
Structural Evaluation, Trends Over Time
© FHWA
PE 2019
Structural Evaluation, by Test Section
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI Versus PSG, Hypothesis
TRB 2008, Session 573
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Mean Pseudo-Gradient (me/in)
Mean Roughness Index (in/mi)
20
40
60
80
100
120
PE 2019
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Mean Pseudo-Gradient (me/in)
Mean Roughness Index (in/mi)
20
40
60
80
100
120
IRI Versus PSG, Hypothesis
TRB 2008, Session 573
PE 2019
Idealized Profile (l = 40 inches)
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI versus PSG
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI/PSG Slope
© FHWA
PE 2019
Uplift and PSG
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI Versus Uplift
© FHWA
PE 2019
Idealized Curl and Background Roughness
© FHWA
+
PE 2019
Idealized Curl and Background Roughness
© FHWA
PE 2019
Idealized Curl and Background Roughness
© FHWA
PE 2019
Background Roughness
© FHWA
PE 2019
Section-Wide PSG Average
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI versus PSG, FHWA Data
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI versus Uplift, FHWA Data
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI versus Uplift, LTPP Data
© FHWA
PE 2019
IRI versus Uplift, LTPP Data
© FHWA
PE 2019
•The fitted values relating IRI to uplift were not systematically related to the theory.
•This could be caused by:•The structural model.
•The “sum of squares” model.
•The low number of slabs per section.
•Some other thing I haven’t noticed.
Assessment
PE 2019
•Notice something new.
•Difference profiles.
•Spectral methods.
•Specialized filters.
•“Advanced” methods.
Possible Next Steps...
2 5 10 2 5 100Wavelength (ft/cycle)
0.1x10-7
0.1x10-6
0.1x10-5
0.1x10-4
0.1x10-3
0.1x10-2
PSD of Left Slope (ft/cycle)
11-Aug-2006
30-Dec-2007
PE 2019
The Report…...
is in the editing phase.
Thank you!!!!
Recommended